Re: Re: Copyright in X-ray works

Going on the (perhaps unwarranted) assumption that Indian law is comparable to US law in the matter, I'm surprised nobody has raised the scenes a faire doctrine here. Even assuming that an x-ray is treated like any other photography, and is theoretically capable of copyright protection (and why not?), and assuming that the radiologist has a choice of different angles to use in taking the shot, surely the choice is severely constrained by functional considerations, and possibly even medical standards of good practice. Under those circumstances I would expect that whatever choice is made will be ineligible for copyright since it can only come from among a very limited number of choices. A radiologist intent on artistic rendition of x-rays might find his or her license in jeopardy!

Vance

PS: I'm not sure why Steve considers US work-for-hire doctrine "curious." In order for there to be work for hire, somebody has to be hired, no? The criteria we use for that consideration is simple common-law employment law. The nine statutory categories are, of course, outside this range, but they apply so seldom that they have very little impact on doctrine, and since they require express contractual language, they are not really distinguishable from assignment (except in some fringe elements like the term and the termination right). The idea that there must be an actual employment relationship in order to divest the author of title to the copyright seems a very logical one to avoid abuse of unequal bargaining position, one of the few remaining such standards left in US law. After all, it only applies to *automatic* divestiture, rather than the free assignability of the copyright, which remains unaffected.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:15:00 -0500, Wallace J.McLean <ag737[_at_]freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "S. Martin Keleti" <keleti[_at_]manifesto.com>
> Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 4:35 pm
> Subject: [CNI-(C)] Re: Copyright in X-ray works
>
> > Lee Kim and Wallace J.McLean responded to Raza Ahmed Siddiqui's
> > posting,
> > but I'd like to offer some additional observations.
> >
> > First, both of these postings seemed to assume that U.S. copyright
> law
> > applied, or that it is sufficiently analogous to Indian copyright
> law,
> > which might not be true in this area.
>
> Let me reassure you that I, a Canadian citizen and resident, with a
> serious interest in, and reasonably good layman's knowledge of,
> Canadian copyright law and issues, which interests brought me to this
> list, definitely made NO such assumption!
>
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>
> Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
>

-- 
Vance R. Koven
Boston, MA USA
vrkoven[_at_]world.std.com